Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 15567
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
N. HARINATH, J
A.B.Venkateswara Rao, IPS – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4675 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.Madhava Rao Nalluri
For the Respondents: SPL PP CUM ACB
The High Court has the authority to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC when allegations do not meet legal scrutiny, even after a charge sheet is filed.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(d), 15, and 7(a)(c) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 420, 120-B, and 511 - Quashing of FIR - Allegations against petitioner relate to misuse of official position for procurement processes benefiting a third party - Court ruled that charges against him cannot sustain legal scrutiny and are baseless. (Paras 1, 2, 20, 24, and 26)
(B) Criminal proceedings - Jurisdiction of High Court - High Court can invoke inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC to quash proceedings when allegations do not sustain scrutiny, even post charge sheet filing. (Paras 12, 25)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a senior police officer, was alleged to have misused his position in connection with procurement processes for surveillance equipment. The allegations asserted that he acted to benefit a company linked to his son, leading to financial loss for the government.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations made against the petitioner failed to establish any prima facie case warranting further legal action, concluding that extending the case to trial was unjustified.
Issues: The court examined whether the allegations met the necessary legal standards to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the charges were based on insufficient evidence and failed to substantiate claims of misuse of authority, thus supporting its decision to quash the proceedings.
Result: Criminal petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against charges (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court observations on the allegations and investigation (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. legal grounds for quashing the complaint (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. conclusion and order for quashing (Para 26 , 27) |
ORDER :
1. The petition is filed seeking to quash of FIR No.1/RCO-CIU-ACB/2021 on the file of Anti Corruption Bureau, CIU, AP, Vijayawada Police Station. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Section 7 (a)(c) Prevention of Corruption (Amendment)Act 2018, Sections 409 , 420, 120-B and read with Section 511 of IPC.
Facts in Brief ::
2. The petitioner rendered his service as a Senior Police Officer in the state and was appointed as Additional Director General of Police for the intelligence department on 10.07.2015. It is the allegation of the state that he had misused his office and caused loss to the government exchequer in that regard the state had conducted an inquiry and a complaint was filed against the petitioner alleging various offences. During the pendency of this petition the ACB had filed charge sheet and the petitioner has filed a copy of the charge sheet vide a separate memo before this Court.
3. An inquiry was ordered on the allegations relating to the process and procurement of Aerostat and UAV (Security and Surveillance Equipment) through the State Trading Corporation of India (STC) for surveillance on the extremists movements and for other security operations. The petitioner had forwarded the proposal to the DGP, A.P for procuring the surveillance equipment.
4. It is the case of the state that the petitioner has misused his official position and resorted to deliberate deviations of the laid down procedures to benefit a 3rd party in the process of procurement. It is the specific allegation in the complaint that the petitioner got incorporated a company Akasham Advanced Systems Limited through his son Mr Chaitanya Sai Krishna. A company based in Israel had issued an authorization letter in the name of Akasham Advanced Systems Limited as their Indian representative except for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. It is alleged that the petitioner had submitted revised technical specifications to the Director General of Police on 27.06.2018 and the same were forwarded by the DGP to the STC. Bids were called by STC and 4 companies participated in the bidding process. RT inflatable Israel had cleared all the technical specifications and other bidders were disqualified. It is alleged that the petitioner had his own interest in disqualifying all other bidders to benefit RT inflatables.
5. It is also alleged that the petitioner had corresponded with the DGP for utilization of the leftover budget from the intelligence department for purchase of security related equipment. Ultimately the purchase order was cancelled resulting in loss of Rs.10,00,000/- to the government exchequer. It is also alleged in the complaint that even after the DGP issuing proceedings of cancellation dated 24.12.2018 the petitioner sent letters on 28.03.2019 to the then DGP to review the cancellation of purchase order or to reinitiate the entire process. It is alleged that the petitioner hatched a conspiracy with others and got incorporated a company and misused his office to benefit the said company which was owned by his son. It is also alleged that the petitioner got deposited Rs.35,00,000/- to the account of Akasham Advanced Systems Limited on 31.10.2018. With these allegations against the petitioner, a complaint was filed after obtaining the requisite permission under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018.
Contentions of the Petitioner ::
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the very registration of the crime is against law as no
